leagueoflegendsfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Waterdude's rollback rights
Recently Technology Wizard promoted WATERDUDE to rollback (and chat mod subsequently) under the reason: "Since he reverts many vandal edits", I have made this forum as I do not believe Waterdude needs or even deserves these rights. If you look at you can see he barely, and I use the word barely quite literally here, any work with vandalism or reverting it, a quick glance through his contributions and all I see are 1 or 2 cases of even using the undo feature (one of which was done to his own edit). I just want some opinions on this before I take action. 02:35, October 21, 2011 (UTC) Comments *I spent a lot of time trying to get him to undo vandalism. I think he isn't up to what a rollback editor should be yet, and I know this because I've been watching him since he started. *I also feel like I've been prematurely promoted. I'm currently inexperienced and still trying to learn and contribute the wiki. I'll keep doing what I'll be doing. So whatever happens, happens. ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 02:43, October 21, 2011 (UTC) *Actually I had permission from Aj. It's not like I would go out of nowhere and do something like this. I noticed one situation where he had trouble reverting someone's vandalism because they had edited 3 or more times I believe. 02:45, 10/21/2011 *Well, it turns out that wasn't a vandal. It was just a huge post he found. ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 02:50, October 21, 2011 (UTC) *I'll let Aj say the rest. 02:51, 10/21/2011 *I thought that it was fine. WATERDUDE has been active in countervandalism recently, and I don't see much of a problem assigning rollback to obviously trusted users. 02:58, October 21, 2011 (UTC) *What counter-vandalism? Looking through his contributions he undid an edit from someone who was using a Riot-based source (the 3 edit situation), outside of that there's about 1 before he got his rollback rights. If 1 undo is all it takes to be considered active in undoing vandalism then most of the wiki should have rollback, including anons. 03:32, October 21, 2011 (UTC) **What's the big deal, I thought it was "just a button" Asperon Thorn 03:59, October 21, 2011 (UTC). ***It's evolved past just a button ever since Tech's wiki review or whatever, it now has a highlight and comes with chat mod. 04:41, October 21, 2011 (UTC) * I dont mind the chatmod seen him on chat since the first day he arrived but RLB.... too early. --LoLisNumbaWan 04:35, October 21, 2011 (UTC) * Thanks for bringing this up Neon. Tech, What me, Neon and the others trying to say is...Stop turning a random user to a rollback editor. Some users that is offered a Rollback right just accept it because of the change of colour they have. If you wanna say Waterdude need the rights because he undo a huge post he found or he have the required edit to have it, I believe Proton or W deserves it more because of their large contributions to the wiki (That IF you think Rollback editors only needs edit, not the countervandalism). i see users like Wob Silas who have a rollback rights only comments, I rarely to never see him revert edit. (and to the point that is more surprises me, You rfp him). Let me clarify it one moar time, ok? Do not turn a random user to a rollback, Or at least, A RFP is needed, so community can review this users first. [[User:Paul Levesque|'Paul Levesque']] [[User talk:Paul Levesque|'Talk to Me!']] 12:44, October 21, 2011 (UTC) *:We decided long ago that rollback didn't need an RfP because it is not a big deal. If the hilite and chatmod bits coming with it are making it a big deal, then I now propose that they be removed. To be completely honest, there is hardly even a need for rollback here - there are no more than five revertable edits per day. Most of the vandalism comes from comments. WATERDUDE has a few reverts under his belt and is obviously a competent user, so where is the harm? 13:25, October 21, 2011 (UTC) **I know, It's even listed on the RfP page (rollback rights can be asked directly from admins). The question is, Did WATERDUDE really asked for the rfp himself? Tech just blatantly promotes him to rollback. And remember my previous comment, Tech has promoted one too many users to rollback, and most of them don't know how to use it. [[User:Paul Levesque|'Paul Levesque']] [[User talk:Paul Levesque|'Talk to Me!']] 13:51, October 21, 2011 (UTC) Proposal to remove the rollback hilite and chatmod bit *'Remove'. If both of these are making it a big deal then they have outlived their purpose. 13:25, October 21, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose removal' Although I couldn't care less about chatmod. Neither of these things are a big deal. It was decided in the same discussion that both the Chatmod and "the one button" could be handed out without a vote. Ironically look at how the discussion went, Neon. So either this has to do with a color, or it has to do with who did the promoting, either way neither are important changes. I can't believe someone will make a bigger deal over a color than they would a button. And I'd hate to think this was just a pissing contest either. Asperon Thorn 16:10, October 21, 2011 (UTC) **There's a difference between public voting and having a place for a discussion, nominations were nothing more than popularity contests and there's a reason they were removed. Regarding the color, I feel as though everything I say just gets completely ignored on this wiki, but I guess that's because opinions have no place in our decisions. ::"there's no purpose for them to have a highlight because they CAN NOT PERFORM ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS, there's a reason why mods+ have it, they can actually help people who have problems, rollbacks can't. It's false advertising giving them a highlight. Also, from the last discussion on this: ::The colors are used to distinguish between users with certain access rights. Although rollbacks have one additional tool than others they are not able to perform administrative tasks therefore allowing them a highlight would serve no purpose. I don't think a user needs to know who has rollbacks rights as, in a hypothetical situation, won't see the need in a user contacting a rollback simply to request them save time to revert an edit rather than themselves undoing it. It's simply used to distinguish between users who can offer additional aid to others." - http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:Wiki_Review_1&t=20110908033957#Oppose 19:31, October 21, 2011 (UTC) :::It is a very childish view to believe that just because you have an opinion and we disagree with it, that we didn't read it or that we we chose to ignore it. We read it, we considered it, and it was recently rejected. "The colors are used to distinguish between users with certain access rights" Rollback users have different access rights. "are not able to perform administrative tasks therefore. . ." This is incorrect. The definition of administration is "management of the affairs of an organization," You don't need tools to do that, you just need to know the rules, help enforce them, and help guide the wiki. If an editor asks a question, or needs help, an orange name can (And usually does) help them 9 times out of 10 because it doesn't need tools, it just needs experience. Since rollbacks are "trusted editors" of the wikia it only makes sense that they have a distinguishable characteristic that let's people know that they are speaking with at least some authority. :::On a practical note, if I see a bunch of edits done by an orange name, I will not go and double check for vandalism. Remove the orange name and that increases the double checking that needs to be done. Asperon Thorn 20:09, October 21, 2011 (UTC) ::::If I see a bunch of edits done by someone whom I recognize, due to regular editing, I won't have to check for vandalism, an orange name shouldn't be the differential between a trusted editor and someone who is a wild card or something. I trust a lot of editors more than I trust WaterDude (someone whom I barely know), but I don't believe they require rollback (neither do I believe WaterDude does). I have a question for you Asperon, what makes an editor "trusted?" What in WaterDude's contribution history screams trust over some of older more regular editors? What in WaterDude's contribution history screams experience? If it's really just a trust thing then all editors over a certain amount of main space edits should just automatically become a rollback editor (with some obvious common sense involved), but, depending on that number, we'll have quite a lot of inexperienced (in comparison to say... myself or pretty much any other editor who is mod+) running around. If rollback is going to have a highlight then the rollback editor should have the knowledge and experience to back up their increased notability, something I don't even think some of our current rollback editors have, this isn't even regarding the fact that rollback, in essence, is an anti-vandalism tool. 00:33, October 22, 2011 (UTC) :::::It is assumed that whoever granted them the rights to begin with "Trusted" them. What I am seeing you write though, is that your issue is that you personally didn't give WATERDUDE his rights as a rollback editor and therefore you have an issue with it. Using the fact that it wasn't voted on, or decided by you, as a forum for your old issue. An orange color means, I don't have to remember names. I'm old, I won't remember every editor. Nor do I wish to. Asperon Thorn 00:37, October 22, 2011 (UTC) *'Remove' 19:32, October 21, 2011 (UTC) Just so everyone knows, this section is to remove the rollback highlight and Waterdude's chat mod. Be sure you know what you're voting for please. 22:43, 10/21/2011 * It really isn't as a big deal as what you guys are making it, rollback is a user right and they should have a highlight. I have seen many wikis with rollback highlights and it doesn't cause any harm at all. I do however want to remove the chat mod+rlb package, but I will be discussing all of this in the next wiki review anyway. 22:43, 10/21/2011 *'Remove' Proposal to make chatmod require a community vote *'Support'. 13:25, October 21, 2011 (UTC) *'Weak Oppose'. My comment regarding the community review is not about the vote, It's just bring back the old problem of Popularity contest. I'm just asking if anyone wants to request to rollback, Just leave a RfP. Then the community or other admin and 'crat can review that user before giving the user the rights. [[User:Paul Levesque|'Paul Levesque']] [[User talk:Paul Levesque|'Talk to Me!']] 13:51, October 21, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose' My recent activity on chat had more to do with figuring out what went on there. I was less than impressed. There is no need to get the wikia community involved in something that maybe 20 users use. Asperon Thorn 16:10, October 21, 2011 (UTC) Proposal to Drop this Forum and let Waterdude be a chatmod instead of RLB *'Support' - I am making the second wiki review in November, all of this would have been brought up. 17:40, 10/21/2011 *'Support' - You should've done this from the beggining rather than giving him rollback, tech. so there are no issues. [[User:Paul Levesque|'Paul Levesque']] [[User talk:Paul Levesque|'Talk to Me!']] 23:57, October 21, 2011 (UTC) **This isn't an issue, this is very minor and could have been easily talked about on talk pages or chat. Honestly this is a distraction from my editing. 00:10, 10/22/2011